elizabeth priddy on tue 14 aug 01
I have been re-thinking what I said.
I stand by 98% of it.
I read several posts that helped me think this
through.
That is why I love this list. Thinking in a vacuum is
dangerous and demoralizing. It is better to use the
marketplace of ideas, as this is what a listserv does
best and what living in the country does worst.
But I would like to clarify this:
once a professional, always a professional is a good
rule of thumb. If you achieve a level of
accomplishment and then don't do it, you do not lose
the status of being a professional. It just changes
the status of your employment, a la part-time.
And think about why you want to be a "professional
potter". Why isn't being a potter, a good potter,
enough?
Why do you think that a professional potter is a
better potter than an amateur?
It ain't necessar'ly so!
It just means that is how they make their living.
That is all folks...
I know some damn professional potters whose work I
would not take as a gift. And some rank amateurs to
whom I would give a hefty sum for a piece.
Professional is just a word codifying whether or not
you make your living from doing a particular activity.
Why claim a word when it doesn't describe you? Maybe
you are simply a potter, an artist, maybe you just
make pots....it's all good.
Words mean things! (...as I have said before and will
probably say again in the future...)
They are our primary connection and it behooves us to
try and use them in a uniform manner, just so that we
can all talk about the same thing as we intend to do
so.
Now stop worrying about bullshit and go make some
pots.
=====
Elizabeth Priddy
epriddyclay@yahoo.com
www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
252-504-2622
PO Box 2342
Beaufort, NC 28516
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Matt MacIntire on wed 15 aug 01
Elizabeth raised several good points, including:
EP>> Words mean things!
EP>>
EP>> ...it behooves us to try and use them in a uniform manner,
EP>> just so that we can all talk about the same thing as we
EP>> intend to do so.
Semantics is a sadly disappointing line of discourse. It robs us of the
very ideas we wish to discuss by entangling us in our imprecise use of
language. All these sorts of discussions about what an artist is or isn't
invariably degenerate into arguments based on semantics alone.
Elizabeth is wise to urge us back to the clay.
..though we are surely risking our health!
Matt
| |
|
